Information for Reviewers

Guidelines for Peer Reviewer

Peer Reviewer is responsible for the article submitted and its author by:

  • Giving critique from reading and evaluating its manuscript in accordance with Peer Reviewer’s field of expertise;
  • Providing constructive suggestion and honest feedback;
  • Discussing strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript;
  • Suggesting approaches to create strength and quality of the article; and,
  • Evaluating the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Prior to reviewing process, Peer Reviewer ought to be accountable on the following conditions:

  • Examine if the article requested for a review agrees to his/her areas of expertise;
  • Notify the editor as early as possible if the manuscript appears unmatched with his/her realm of expertise;
  • Recommend to the editor another choice of reviewers whose expertise matches with the article;
  • Be professionally committed to finish reviewing of the requested manuscript within two weeks (man-day);
  • Notify the editor as early as possible if a longer period of review than two weeks is needed, otherwise recommend another choice of reviewers;
  • Investigate any potential conflicts of interest pertaining to his/her role as reviewer of the requested article, and have them disclosed to the editor prior to reviewing. While conflicts of interest may not disqualify reviewer(s) from a peer-review work, it is imperative for Peer Reviewer to report such condition(s).

Review Process
Peer Reviewer should consider the following areas:

Title:                Does it give a clear illustration of the article?
Abstract:          Does it summarize the essential contents of the article?
Introduction:    Does it describe the accuracy of matters?

To what extent the background of the matters provides a solid rationale that leads

to the Problem Statement?

Does the article contain clear purposes?

Typically, the introductory part should portray the context of the relevant research studies, and, explain findings of earlier research studies that point toward depth of discussion.


Content of the Article

  • To determine originality and suitability of the manuscript for journal publication, Peer Reviewer must check if there are any elements of plagiarism over 25% of this paper field? Do use certain tools, such as Scopus, to investigate similarities to other parts.
  • If the same type of study under the submitted manuscript was conducted before by other authors, please examine if it is eligible for publication?
  • Is the article relatively novel, profound, and, academically useful to be published?
  • To what extent the article contributes to knowledge?
  • Does the article follow the standard of the journal publication?
  • Is the article congruent with its objectives and scope of the journal?

Comprehensiveness and precision:

  • Does the author provide accurate description of how the data is collected?
  • Are there theoretical bases or references being used appropriately on this study?
  • Is the exposure design suitable to answer the questions being posed?
  • is there a decent enough information for you to imitate the research?
  • Does the article illustrate procedures in line with its hypotheses, research questions, and conceptual frameworks?
  • Are there any new methods applied in this study? If so, how does the author explain it?
    Is there any appropriate sampling and sampling procedure?
  • To what extent the tools and materials used for analyses are explained?
  • What type of data is being recorded and to what extent measurement is described?


In this area, the author must explain the findings of his/her research. Explanation must be clearly laid out in logical sequence. Peer Reviewer needs to consider the extent to which appropriate analyses are conducted and consistent with the uses of statistical tools. If Peer Reviewer sees a better choice of statistical tools for this study, do notify it. Interpretation is not needed in this section.

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are the claims in this section reasonably supported by fair results?
  • Does the author show comparison between his/her research results with any other previous ones?
  • Are the results in this article contradictory with any previous theories?
  • Does the conclusion explain the extent to which a better scientific research should follow?

Tables and Pictures

  • Are they suitable with the referred explanation?
  • Are those illustration of data easy to follow, interpret and comprehend?

Writing Style

Author of the article must show critical review—with his/her own voice—to the literature pertinent to the article and field of study.  Reviews should be focused on a single topic.  The work must appear in English with correct and coherent grammar. The article should be easy to read and offer value for reading.

Subjects to be considered

Perspective: a unique perspective that describes experiences and situations related to issues in Computer Sciences, Information Technology,  Digital Learning, Teaching and Technology, Digital Economy, Business, and Management.

Originality of Research

  • The original data and testing must offer a new approach to improve systems, processes, and precision of the tools being used.
  • Research policy and observational analysis should clarify the feasibility, effectiveness, and implementation on the research results.
  • It is not limited to the topic of Computer Sciences, Information Technology,  Digital Learning, Teaching and Technology, Digital Economy, Business, and Management.
  • The paper should explain situation with regards to the future challenges in marketing management, finance management, strategic management, operation management, human resource management, e-business, knowledge management, management accounting, management control system, management information system, international business, business economics, business ethics and sustainability, and entrepreneurship, within its conclusions, and things which can be learned.

Final Review

  • Results submitted by Peer Reviewer are confidential.
  • If Peer Reviewer wishes to discuss the article being reviewed with a colleague, he/she strictly needs to inform the editor.
  • Peer Reviewer must not have direct communication with the author regarding the article being reviewed.

Ethical Issue

  • Plagiarism. If the article is suspected for plagiarism, Peer Reviewer must report to the editor.
  • Fraudulence. Although it is difficult to detect a fraudulent action, if Peer Reviewer is not convinced by the results in the article, he/she may inform the editor at once.


End Notes

  • Peer Reviewer must submit "the reviewed manuscript" by the due date to the editorial office.
  • Reviewer’s recommendation for the article will be considered when the editor makes a final decision and his/her honest feedback is highly appreciated.
  • Peer Reviewer should write his/her comment with careful tone, sensibility and sensitivity. Comments intended for the editor must be separated from the one intended for the author.
  • Peer Reviewer must treat any questions or problems pertaining to the article being reviewed with urgency, and contact the editorial office at once.